Are people helpless in controling their weight?
Replies
-
I gained weight due to a genetic condition.
My genes are preprogrammed so that if I eat more than I burn over a long period of time I gain weight.
It's not fair!!! :sad:0 -
I know a family with many obese members. Are we to assume that just because most of them are obese that it must be genetic? I don't think so. I have seen how they eat. More specifically, how much they eat. I am not trying to be a judgemental meanie here, but it seems like obesity is not what is being passed down. It's bad eating habits. It's the thought that you can sit around all day and never exercise, but still eat as much as you want. Genetics may play a role in metabolism or diseases such as diabetes and hypothyroidism, but a little personal responsibility goes a long way.0
-
People in general are not helpless just looking for the easy way out.
Its human nature. As a physical therapist I never ask people if the want to exercise, I tell them to do a specific exercise. If i asked if they wanted to, they would say no. If the MD said,"I have a pill to control your bp, cholesterol and you can eat whatever you want would you take it? Or you can work out and eat healthy. I personally don't want to be on meds for conditions I can try to change. (Granted there are things that meds are needed.) Md's give out meds too quickly when people should try to make a life style change first.
If someone 400 lbs needs a knee replacement, it will get done but the long term success rate is lower than for a lighter person. Maybe the MD should help the person loose weight and they might not end up needing the surgery, Billions of dollars are spent on obesity and its side effects (diabetes, heart disease, joint replacements). Sorry i'll get off my soap box.
I also find that people have zippo will power and they are not willing to give things up. We as a society are overindulgent...bigger and more is better. Or so we are told.0 -
I don't think so, my Dad was perfect weight, muscular and healthy, and his side of the family had no problem with obesity. My Mom was fit and athletic until she started having kids, then she started gaining weight.
There is more to the story and I agree with the poster who said if you are starved with a 600 calorie diet of course you will rebound.0 -
I gained weight due to a genetic condition.
My genes are preprogrammed so that if I eat more than I burn over a long period of time I gain weight.
It's not fair!!! :sad:
:laugh:0 -
And yet they never answer why human beings only started inheriting all this fat in the last 30 or so years on an epidemic scale.
The reason the majority of human beings today fail at losing weight, or keeping it off after losing, regardless of what plan they use, including "lifestyle changes", is because so many of the world's citizens live in overfed societies where tasty, cheap food is readily available. They eventually crack under the pressure of being "different", and fall right back into old habits.
Let a famine sweep through and come talk to me then about "inherited obesity"
Yes, indeed. It's a mystery, right?
Look, OP, learned behaviors are hard to change. If you're born into a family of all obese people, not a huge stretch to think you're going to have a high probability of being obese since you'll likely learn your eating habits from them. Something tells me that little kids adopted into obese foster homes would have the same high probability. Look at all the people from other countries who move here. How many learn from us, adopt the "Typical American Diet" and become obese? Same thing, but they have a better shot at not becoming obese. At least they had a good foundation to fall back on.
Besides, the body is pretty tightly regulated - metabolism especially, since it is so tightly intertwined with everything that occurs in the body. I don't know if anyone's done the research because metabolism is not my field, but I would be surprised if you can have much variation in the rates of the various metabolic processes without serious physiological consequences - well beyond just gaining weight.0 -
Actually you need only read through this forum to see see how on point the article and studies are. Lose and regain. Rinse and repeat. But lets not argue with science, studies, and statistical data to have an intelligent conversation about weight loss. And why so many people fail in their weight loss quest. They are just a bunch of fatties who can't put down the ding-dongs. Just post low brow, third grade, memes.0
-
If he had studied normal, slow weight loss we might not be having this conversation.
"Normal, slow weight loss" has been studied.
That method has the same abysmal regain rate as quick, fast, low calorie.
None of the current methods of weight loss lead to lasting change in the vast majority of people. Call it a lifestyle change, slow and steady wins the race, etc, it all leads to the same road for the overwhelming majority of people.
Fat and fat again.
That's why the concentration has to be on a total and complete mind change AFTER the weight is gone, because how you lost it is proving to matter so little.
I disagree with this and would like to see studies that compare the regain rates/percentages of people who did the different techniques. Also, I'd like to see the measurements be body fat instead of "pounds"....
I think that there is a huge difference in success long term between people who do quick starvation diets and those who do slow and steady. First of all, slow and steady is sustainable and IS a lifestyle change. Second, when you lose weight by sever calorie restriction, you lose critical muscle mass which lowers your metabolism. You also encourage a mind-set of all or nothing... as opposed to a mind set of moderation.
I did slow and steady, lost 50 lbs and gained back 20. But as I said, I would like to see the measurements not in pounds but in body fat...because my weight is up, but so is my muscle mass (I lift heavy). My body fat was down to 19% at it's lowest and is now up to 23%. Not something I'm ashamed of, considering I started in the ball park of 40% four years ago.
You can chose to believe whatever you like, but it's the truth. Losing weight/fat/pounds/whatever, regardless of method, the overwhelming majority of times, in the overwhelming majority of people, leads to significant regaining of weight in the long term.
Long term success is extremely rare, and even most of the 'successes' are people who managed to not gain back ALL the weight.
There is no evidence that calling it a "lifestyle change", doing it the "slow, or "right", way leads to a great percentage of long term weight loss success. Those are popular dieting mantras that have no basis in fact at all. They just sound really good and encouraging, and for companies in the business of weight loss, they're great ways to keep people hooked for long periods of time.
This article references a study where almost all the slow, moderate, and fast losers regained the weight. The difference was that the quicker losers, on the whole, enjoyed far more weight loss because they'd lost more in the same amount of time. Everyone regained about similar amounts of weight, regardless of rate of loss.
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2011/11/nutrition/the-myth-of-slow-weight-loss_43011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443094
An excerpt from the study:
"Our study provides further evidence that, within the context of lifestyle treatment, losing weight at a fast initial rate leads to greater short-term weight reductions, does not result in increased susceptibility to weight regain, and is associated with larger weight losses and overall long-term success in weight management," the authors write in the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
Here is an analysis over over two dozen US studies, done across 5 years, comparing people who lost on a very low energy diet (less than 800 a day) vs a more balanced diet of 1200-1500 calories.
The conclusions?
"Participants who completed a very low energy diet programme lost significantly more weight and maintained greater weight losses after four to five years than those who completed a hypoenergetic balanced diet programme".
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long
Anecdotally I've lost slow, and lost fast. Regain rates were the same following each type of loss. I have never seen any advantage to slowing down weight loss, except frustration. Most important is how you adjust after you lose weight, regardless of how you lost it.
I challenge you to find a single study that champions strong long term success for slow, "lifestyle" change dieters.0 -
And yet they never answer why human beings only started inheriting all this fat in the last 30 or so years on an epidemic scale.
The reason the majority of human beings today fail at losing weight, or keeping it off after losing, regardless of what plan they use, including "lifestyle changes", is because so many of the world's citizens live in overfed societies where tasty, cheap food is readily available. They eventually crack under the pressure of being "different", and fall right back into old habits.
Let a famine sweep through and come talk to me then about "inherited obesity"
Yes, indeed. It's a mystery, right?
Look, OP, learned behaviors are hard to change. If you're born into a family of all obese people, not a huge stretch to think you're going to have a high probability of being obese since you'll likely learn your eating habits from them. Something tells me that little kids adopted into obese foster homes would have the same high probability. Look at all the people from other countries who move here. How many learn from us, adopt the "Typical American Diet" and become obese? Same thing, but they have a better shot at not becoming obese. At least they had a good foundation to fall back on.
Besides, the body is pretty tightly regulated - metabolism especially, since it is so tightly intertwined with everything that occurs in the body. I don't know if anyone's done the research because metabolism is not my field, but I would be surprised if you can have much variation in the rates of the various metabolic processes without serious physiological consequences - well beyond just gaining weight.
Re-read the section about adoptees and twins. Its the nature versus nurture argument. The article is stating that the major causes are more likely genetic and not environmental. That is what I found to be interesting because it goes against what many of the "experts" here think and are spewing.0 -
Some physical traits are inherited. Big bones and such. There are some diseases that are inherited that hinder peoples ability to metabolize fat. Thyroid problems and such.
Heart issuea run in my family. Most of them were overweight and had other issues. They also liked fatty meat and drank a lot of cola.---- not attacking meat and cola. Anything eaten in moderation is ok----
According to that theory I am doomed to die early from heart problems caused by obesity.
Following MFP I've gone from 195 to 115 and have kept it off for a year. I would have to say they are wrong.0 -
And yet they never answer why human beings only started inheriting all this fat in the last 30 or so years on an epidemic scale.
The reason the majority of human beings today fail at losing weight, or keeping it off after losing, regardless of what plan they use, including "lifestyle changes", is because so many of the world's citizens live in overfed societies where tasty, cheap food is readily available. They eventually crack under the pressure of being "different", and fall right back into old habits.
Let a famine sweep through and come talk to me then about "inherited obesity"
Yes, indeed. It's a mystery, right?
Look, OP, learned behaviors are hard to change. If you're born into a family of all obese people, not a huge stretch to think you're going to have a high probability of being obese since you'll likely learn your eating habits from them. Something tells me that little kids adopted into obese foster homes would have the same high probability. Look at all the people from other countries who move here. How many learn from us, adopt the "Typical American Diet" and become obese? Same thing, but they have a better shot at not becoming obese. At least they had a good foundation to fall back on.
Besides, the body is pretty tightly regulated - metabolism especially, since it is so tightly intertwined with everything that occurs in the body. I don't know if anyone's done the research because metabolism is not my field, but I would be surprised if you can have much variation in the rates of the various metabolic processes without serious physiological consequences - well beyond just gaining weight.
There was a big study done a few years ago, the Danish adoption study, that matched up adopted kids with their biological parents and those who had obese (biological) parents were more prone to being obese, even if their adoptive family was thin. The author of the article in the OP goes into it a bit in her book, Rethinking Thin. Here's a bit of info on it-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/84520570 -
If he had studied normal, slow weight loss we might not be having this conversation.
"Normal, slow weight loss" has been studied.
That method has the same abysmal regain rate as quick, fast, low calorie.
None of the current methods of weight loss lead to lasting change in the vast majority of people. Call it a lifestyle change, slow and steady wins the race, etc, it all leads to the same road for the overwhelming majority of people.
Fat and fat again.
That's why the concentration has to be on a total and complete mind change AFTER the weight is gone, because how you lost it is proving to matter so little.
I disagree with this and would like to see studies that compare the regain rates/percentages of people who did the different techniques. Also, I'd like to see the measurements be body fat instead of "pounds"....
I think that there is a huge difference in success long term between people who do quick starvation diets and those who do slow and steady. First of all, slow and steady is sustainable and IS a lifestyle change. Second, when you lose weight by sever calorie restriction, you lose critical muscle mass which lowers your metabolism. You also encourage a mind-set of all or nothing... as opposed to a mind set of moderation.
I did slow and steady, lost 50 lbs and gained back 20. But as I said, I would like to see the measurements not in pounds but in body fat...because my weight is up, but so is my muscle mass (I lift heavy). My body fat was down to 19% at it's lowest and is now up to 23%. Not something I'm ashamed of, considering I started in the ball park of 40% four years ago.
You can chose to believe whatever you like, but it's the truth. Losing weight/fat/pounds/whatever, regardless of method, the overwhelming majority of times, in the overwhelming majority of people, leads to significant regaining of weight in the long term.
Long term success is extremely rare, and even most of the 'successes' are people who managed to not gain back ALL the weight.
There is no evidence that calling it a "lifestyle change", doing it the "slow, or "right", way leads to a great percentage of long term weight loss success. Those are popular dieting mantras that have no basis in fact at all. They just sound really good and encouraging, and for companies in the business of weight loss, they're great ways to keep people hooked for long periods of time.
This article references a study where almost all the slow, moderate, and fast losers regained the weight. The difference was that the quicker losers, on the whole, enjoyed far more weight loss because they'd lost more in the same amount of time. Everyone regained about similar amounts of weight, regardless of rate of loss.
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2011/11/nutrition/the-myth-of-slow-weight-loss_43011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443094
An excerpt from the study:
"Our study provides further evidence that, within the context of lifestyle treatment, losing weight at a fast initial rate leads to greater short-term weight reductions, does not result in increased susceptibility to weight regain, and is associated with larger weight losses and overall long-term success in weight management," the authors write in the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
Here is an analysis over over two dozen US studies, done across 5 years, comparing people who lost on a very low energy diet (less than 800 a day) vs a more balanced diet of 1200-1500 calories.
The conclusions?
"Participants who completed a very low energy diet programme lost significantly more weight and maintained greater weight losses after four to five years than those who completed a hypoenergetic balanced diet programme".
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long
Anecdotally I've lost slow, and lost fast. Regain rates were the same following each type of loss. I have never seen any advantage to slowing down weight loss, except frustration. Most important is how you adjust after you lose weight, regardless of how you lost it.
I challenge you to find a single study that champions strong long term success for slow, "lifestyle" change dieters.
Thanks for the intelligent post!0 -
And yet they never answer why human beings only started inheriting all this fat in the last 30 or so years on an epidemic scale.
The reason the majority of human beings today fail at losing weight, or keeping it off after losing, regardless of what plan they use, including "lifestyle changes", is because so many of the world's citizens live in overfed societies where tasty, cheap food is readily available. They eventually crack under the pressure of being "different", and fall right back into old habits.
Let a famine sweep through and come talk to me then about "inherited obesity"
Yes, indeed. It's a mystery, right?
Look, OP, learned behaviors are hard to change. If you're born into a family of all obese people, not a huge stretch to think you're going to have a high probability of being obese since you'll likely learn your eating habits from them. Something tells me that little kids adopted into obese foster homes would have the same high probability. Look at all the people from other countries who move here. How many learn from us, adopt the "Typical American Diet" and become obese? Same thing, but they have a better shot at not becoming obese. At least they had a good foundation to fall back on.
Besides, the body is pretty tightly regulated - metabolism especially, since it is so tightly intertwined with everything that occurs in the body. I don't know if anyone's done the research because metabolism is not my field, but I would be surprised if you can have much variation in the rates of the various metabolic processes without serious physiological consequences - well beyond just gaining weight.
Actually, there was a big study done a few years ago, the Danish adoption study, that matched up adopted kids with their biological parents and those who had obese parents were more prone to being obese, even if their adoptive family was thin. The author of the article in the OP goes into it a bit in her book, Rethinking Thin. Here's a bit of info on it-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8452057
It was worth a page of ignorant trolls who "smile quietly" to get to page 2 and intelligent posts like yours. Amazing how so many people have difficulty reading anything more than a twitter tweet and can fail to understand a well written article with scientific references.0 -
I think fad diets should be illegal like meth and heroin.
You shouldn't be allowed to talk about or sell misleading health advice.
Just like we don't allow people to sell or talk about cocaine on the airwaves and in magazines.
Maybe then it won't be so confusing for people to find the truth en masse.
And weight control is a bigger issue than drug abuse. Much more widespread. Who cares if the addict has to eat to survive, its still an addiction, even if it is a basic human function.
The average person could not use google to find the truth because its so hidden amongst a bunch of out of context garbage.
Thats the real problem facing a solution to obesity in America. We need a canonized scripture of what body transformation is. Stop teaching kids geography in school and make sure they master how many calories each gram of what macronutrient has.0 -
And yet they never answer why human beings only started inheriting all this fat in the last 30 or so years on an epidemic scale.
The reason the majority of human beings today fail at losing weight, or keeping it off after losing, regardless of what plan they use, including "lifestyle changes", is because so many of the world's citizens live in overfed societies where tasty, cheap food is readily available. They eventually crack under the pressure of being "different", and fall right back into old habits.
Let a famine sweep through and come talk to me then about "inherited obesity"
Yes, indeed. It's a mystery, right?
Look, OP, learned behaviors are hard to change. If you're born into a family of all obese people, not a huge stretch to think you're going to have a high probability of being obese since you'll likely learn your eating habits from them. Something tells me that little kids adopted into obese foster homes would have the same high probability. Look at all the people from other countries who move here. How many learn from us, adopt the "Typical American Diet" and become obese? Same thing, but they have a better shot at not becoming obese. At least they had a good foundation to fall back on.
Besides, the body is pretty tightly regulated - metabolism especially, since it is so tightly intertwined with everything that occurs in the body. I don't know if anyone's done the research because metabolism is not my field, but I would be surprised if you can have much variation in the rates of the various metabolic processes without serious physiological consequences - well beyond just gaining weight.
Actually, there was a big study done a few years ago, the Danish adoption study, that matched up adopted kids with their biological parents and those who had obese parents were more prone to being obese, even if their adoptive family was thin. The author of the article in the OP goes into it a bit in her book, Rethinking Thin. Here's a bit of info on it-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8452057
It was worth a page of ignorant trolls who "smile quietly" to get to page 2 and intelligent posts like yours. Amazing how so many people have difficulty reading anything more than a twitter tweet and can fail to understand a well written article with scientific references.
I think it's all kind of fascinating, so I've done a bit research on it
As someone who does have a family tree full of obesity and health problems most likely caused by it (namely type 2 diabetes), I'm very interested in how my genetic makeup could affect my health. From what I've read so far, it definitely is a factor, but it's not the biggest one. I have turned my own health in a different direction than my relatives, so I know it's possible, but I also realize it will be a battle I fight for the rest of my life. I'm up for the challenge though 0 -
There is a genetic component to weight gain, absolutely.
But it's only one piece of the puzzle.
Understand that almost all of these studies are done in western societies with plentiful, near endless access to high calorie foods.
So in the adoption/birth child example, yes the adopted child might have a higher propensity toward obesity if their birth parent did as well. But keep in mind that the environment they grew up in, in a typical westernized household, is likely to involve access to a great deal of food.
Famine, food scarcity, consumption of more whole and natural foods, hard physical labor, these things have traditionally kept the weight of humans down, regardless of their genetic propensities.
Now? People with genetic propensity for obesity (such as myself) have to be MORE aware and MORE diligent about losing and maintaining weight.
And in a land of overabundance, as obesity rates rise, we are seeing fatness become an issue REGARDLESS of family weight history. It's not just the genetics.
So no it is not hopeless. It just means that all of us need to be aware of our biological history, whenever possible, and act accordingly.0 -
It was worth a page of ignorant trolls who "smile quietly" to get to page 2 and intelligent posts like yours. Amazing how so many people have difficulty reading anything more than a twitter tweet and can fail to understand a well written article with scientific references.
Oh. Okay.
Well no one can discount that genetic factors play a huge role in obesity. But that is far from the only determining factor. While those with the genetic propensity toward obesity may likely have to be more diligent in their diet and activity levels, there are also learned behaviors as well which cannot be overlooked. In fact, some scientists are even beginning to wonder if poor habits leading to obesity are difficult to change due to the degree to which they are practiced without deliberate action, while lifestyle changes require constant conscious choice. The rather nascent science of automaticity is only beginning to investigate the possibility incorporating new healthier behaviors into patients' lives by making them more automatic. This is something that, while intriguing, may raise ethical questions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147101531100081X
This is only one other contributing factor but it's the one that intrigues me the most. And now I'm done, not because I'm an idiot but because you're a jerk.0 -
No.0
-
Who do you guys think would have the best chance to transform their body?
1) An obese person with genetic disposition to be obese --but has all the knowledge and facts on how to lift and count calories and lose weight.
2) A generally average obese person with no "fat gene" --but has no clue or experience ever actually losing weight or even knows where to begin?0 -
Being fat is an inherited condition.
That's not even remotely what the article actually says.
What the article actually says is that if you overeat, you get fat. When you stop overeating, you start slimming. When you restart over-eating, you get fatter again.0 -
I think most people accept there is a genetic component to body shape.
Yes, Some people are more prone to weight gain than others, due to genetic factors.
But that doesn't equate to people being 'helpless to control weight' as your thread title says.
No amount of exercise and healthy eating is going to transform me into a petite bean pole - but it is going to make me within the healthy weight range for my height and build.
Everyone can work with what they have got and everyone can control their weight - there is not a gene that makes it impossible to lose weight.0 -
It was worth a page of ignorant trolls who "smile quietly" to get to page 2 and intelligent posts like yours. Amazing how so many people have difficulty reading anything more than a twitter tweet and can fail to understand a well written article with scientific references.
Oh. Okay.
Well no one can discount that genetic factors play a huge role in obesity. But that is far from the only determining factor. While those with the genetic propensity toward obesity may likely have to be more diligent in their diet and activity levels, there are also learned behaviors as well which cannot be overlooked. In fact, some scientists are even beginning to wonder if poor habits leading to obesity are difficult to change due to the degree to which they are practiced without deliberate action, while lifestyle changes require constant conscious choice. The rather nascent science of automaticity is only beginning to investigate the possibility incorporating new healthier behaviors into patients' lives by making them more automatic. This is something that, while intriguing, may raise ethical questions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147101531100081X
This is only one other contributing factor but it's the one that intrigues me the most. And now I'm done, not because I'm an idiot but because you're a jerk.
And please feel free to go on your merry way as the discussion is clearly above your pay grade. The article references several studies which show the genetic connection to obesity. Its not the only answer, but a huge factor in explaining why so few people who are overweight can sustain their weight loss. Is that so controversial or difficult to understand? Perhaps for some. Read these forums if you doubt it. Clearly there is a metabolic quotient (?) that seems to be significantly different from person to person that may make long term possible difficult/impossible for some beyond the environmental ones.0 -
I read a study that said that there is evidence that some people *may* have an abnormally "efficient" metabolism (i.e. fat gains come easily) for whatever reason, even when hormone leves are "normal". But that's all it is...one study at this point. Plus, the study said that it *only* amounted to a difference in caloric needs of approx 100 per day between such people and everyone else. And *some* researchers interpreted this evidence in such a way that they CONJECTURED that it *might* have a tendency to be heritable because it *might* be related to insulin resistance trajectory over the lifetime, which past research strongly indicates *can* be heritable.
Maybe the tendency to believe certain things is also heritable...
I know...don't shoot the messenger. Regardless, 100 calories is nothing. You can easily burn that by standing up for a while instead of sitting.
Bottom line is, humans are poor judges of how much they eat unless they weigh their food. Most people eat too much. Some people eat too little. Those who the right amount are in a minority, imho. My reasoning is that over the long-term, most people tend to gain and/or lose weight. These practices seem to have a far greater impact on obesity than anything else.
.0 -
Its not the only answer, but a huge factor in explaining why so few people who are overweight can sustain their weight loss.
No, it is not even part of the answer.
Drop those "genetically disabled" people into Eritrea for six months, and they will come out skinny as rails.
Genetics plays zero role in obesity.0 -
Being fat is an inherited condition.
That's not even remotely what the article actually says.
What the article actually says is that if you overeat, you get fat. When you stop overeating, you start slimming. When you restart over-eating, you get fatter again.
Actually that is a direct quote:
In other words, being fat was an inherited condition.
Go down about 26 paragraphs..............meh0 -
Its not the only answer, but a huge factor in explaining why so few people who are overweight can sustain their weight loss.
No, it is not even part of the answer.
Drop those "genetically disabled" people into Eritrea for six months, and they will come out skinny as rails.
Genetics plays zero role in obesity.
Okay doctor:
http://www.cdc.gov/features/obesity/
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/suppl_2/R124.full
http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/news-genes-idd-in-obesity-how-much-of-weight-is-genetic/
ignorance is bliss............0 -
I think most people accept there is a genetic component to body shape.
Yes, Some people are more prone to weight gain than others, due to genetic factors.
But that doesn't equate to people being 'helpless to control weight' as your thread title says.
No amount of exercise and healthy eating is going to transform me into a petite bean pole - but it is going to make me within the healthy weight range for my height and build.
Everyone can work with what they have got and everyone can control their weight - there is not a gene that makes it impossible to lose weight.
I second this. Everyone in my immediate family with the exception of one of my sisters has struggled with weight. But we are not helpless. We have controlled our weight gain with our eating habits. We have also all controlled our weight loss with our eating habits.0 -
I think most people accept there is a genetic component to body shape.
Yes, Some people are more prone to weight gain than others, due to genetic factors.
But that doesn't equate to people being 'helpless to control weight' as your thread title says.
No amount of exercise and healthy eating is going to transform me into a petite bean pole - but it is going to make me within the healthy weight range for my height and build.
Everyone can work with what they have got and everyone can control their weight - there is not a gene that makes it impossible to lose weight.
Here is article that discusses the "genes" involved in obesity.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/news-genes-idd-in-obesity-how-much-of-weight-is-genetic/0 -
It was worth a page of ignorant trolls who "smile quietly" to get to page 2 and intelligent posts like yours. Amazing how so many people have difficulty reading anything more than a twitter tweet and can fail to understand a well written article with scientific references.
Oh. Okay.
Well no one can discount that genetic factors play a huge role in obesity. But that is far from the only determining factor. While those with the genetic propensity toward obesity may likely have to be more diligent in their diet and activity levels, there are also learned behaviors as well which cannot be overlooked. In fact, some scientists are even beginning to wonder if poor habits leading to obesity are difficult to change due to the degree to which they are practiced without deliberate action, while lifestyle changes require constant conscious choice. The rather nascent science of automaticity is only beginning to investigate the possibility incorporating new healthier behaviors into patients' lives by making them more automatic. This is something that, while intriguing, may raise ethical questions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147101531100081X
This is only one other contributing factor but it's the one that intrigues me the most. And now I'm done, not because I'm an idiot but because you're a jerk.
And please feel free to go on your merry way as the discussion is clearly above your pay grade. The article references several studies which show the genetic connection to obesity. Its not the only answer, but a huge factor in explaining why so few people who are overweight can sustain their weight loss. Is that so controversial or difficult to understand? Perhaps for some. Read these forums if you doubt it. Clearly there is a metabolic quotient (?) that seems to be significantly different from person to person that may make long term possible difficult/impossible for some beyond the environmental ones.
You keep saying the same thing and we keep saying the same other thing and even though I know you made this thread to get a rise out of us, I'm just going to say:
We've read these forums. Some of us for many many years. If you think you can use any group of related posts to confirm or deny any of your claims, well good luck with that. Anyone who comes in here and acts the way you are acting is going to get his or her hat handed to him.
Continue to be rude and argumentative, and that's what you will get in return. Post threads with titles and claims like this one and expect pictures and arguments. Attack long-time intelligent members and find yourself on the "other" end of friendly.
Better to come in expecting the best rather than the worst.
We eagerly await your next attempt at proving your non-point.0 -
OP if you are actually looking for a discussion with this (discussion including opposing points of views), then maybe you should stop insulting everyone.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions